Although the National Climate Assessment (NCA) attempts to provide a comprehensive report on the state of global warming and climate change, it misses the mark in every possible way. First, the report claims nothing but negative effects of rising anthropogenic CO2 levels. However, CO2 composes a minute percentage of atmospheric gases, and the rise in emissions has actually been economically beneficial by exponentially increasing crop yield. Moreover, data reveals that the environment is currently entering a period void of any global warming. Second, the assessment states that the rising temperatures are causing more frequent and severe natural disasters. Yet, experts testify that no significant trends in floods, droughts, tornados, or hurricanes exist. In fact, according to these experts, the frequency of tornadoes and severity of hurricanes have decreased over time in the United States. Third, the NCA reports that rising sea levels have severely damaged domestic infrastructure. However, data reveals a deceleration in sea level rise, one that will remain negligible in the coming century. In light of this propaganda, the Obama administration is using this assessment to prevent natural gas and oil exploration which could support tens of thousands of jobs during a staggering economy. As will be explained in future blog posts, it seems like the National Climate Assessment has done nothing but perpetuate lies and hurt the economy.

“First, the report claims nothing but negative effects of rising anthropogenic CO2 levels. However, CO2 composes a minute percentage of atmospheric gases, and the rise in emissions has actually been economically beneficial by exponentially increasing crop yield.”

I am no expert in environmentalism or policy, but what causes the difference in the way NCA interprets these levels and the way the NCPA does? They claim negative and you claim positive, is there something that is missing from the NCA’s point of view?

It sounds as if the NCA has different interests that providing the truth about climate change. They prefer the doom and gloom route instead of proving the changes are not significant enough to make a detrimental impact.

It’s rather audacious to come out against scientific consensus, scientific data, and over 300 leaders from academia, state and local governments, private and non profit sources that worked together on the NCA. There are some studies that warming has helped increase agricultural yield, but at a certain point plants saturate the benefits of warmer temperature. At that point, higher temperatures become harmful because that means more drought and less water for plants.

As for the economy and domestic infrastructure, we are beginning to see infrastructure deteriorate due to warmer conditions. As far as the economy, imagine the costs that national, state, and local governments will have to incur in order to retrofit infrastructure to adapt to higher temperatures (tarmac, levees, dams, homes, bridges, railroad tracks)

It may be that the weather patterns as of late have helped provide an impetus to get people to act now on climate change. There may be no causal relationship. But long-term trends certainly can’t be ignored, including the correlation between anthropogenic emissions and higher temperatures.